get_firmware_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a meaningful trait: images and upgrade paths are sourced from FortiGuard, so an eval license returns none, with a psirt URL for manual lookup. It does not state read-only nature, permissions, or rate limits, so disclosure is partial rather than rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences, both earning their place: the first front-loads the returned data, the second carries the eval-license caveat and the manual-check pointer. No filler or restatement of the name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, but the description itself enumerates the returned fields and the key edge case (eval license producing empty image lists), which is enough for an agent to call and interpret it. It could go further on read-only/authorization context, but for a one-parameter status readout it is close to complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single vdom parameter with its default documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description adds no syntax or format detail about vdom beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb-and-resource readout, enumerating exactly what is returned: running version/build/maturity/release notes, newer FortiGuard images, supported upgrade path, and auto-upgrade settings. Purpose is unambiguous, though it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like get_fortiguard_status or get_system_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied (check the firmware status) but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no routing to alternative tools such as get_fortiguard_status. The one conditional hint — evaluation licenses list no images — is genuinely useful but is a data caveat rather than selection guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.